Last night 60 Minutes had a report on a policy in Texas regarding high school students and acceptance to college. Any student who finishes in the top 10% of his or her high school class is guaranteed admission at any public university in the state of Texas. The controversy which led to it being on 60 Minutes is that 73% of this year’s freshman class at the University of Texas is made up of students admitted under this policy. They contrasted a young woman from a high school in a poor area who finished in the top 10% of her class with a 3.5 grade point average with a young woman who’d attended an academically competetive school in an affluent area who finished just out of the top 10% of her class with a 3.9 grade point average, despite having several family members who’d attended the University of Texas, and basically doing everything else she could to get in. She said this was the only college she’d wanted to attend. (For those not familiar with the American education system, grade point averages are calculated on a scale from 0 to 4). This policy was implemented to replace Texas’ affirmative action program which was ruled illegal. The head of the University of Texas would like to see it modified to state that students admitted under that policy could make up no more than half of a school’s incoming freshman class; 60 Minutes also interviewed a gentleman who wants it to be repealed. He suggested a possible replacement would be a new affirmative action program, since the Supreme Court has since ruled that affirmative action programs are not unconstitutional.
I was wondering what people around here thought of this policy, especially compared to the affirmative action programs it was intended to replace and what could be done to revise it. When I first started watching the report, I was thinking 10% sounded rather high, and I wondered if making it 5% or 7% might reduce the odds of universities being swamped. It seems to me to be a good way to give kids who haven’t had the opportunities wealthier kids have had (and in this case, “wealthier” includes ordinary, middle class kids) a chance to go to college without delving into the messy area of racial quotas. On the other hand, I wasn’t turned down by any college I applied to, and I have a certain academic bias.
10% of the state’s graduating students will qualify for a place under this system. Many of those, I would gess, will take up places for which they would qualify under other systems anyway.
There will still be cases where students with a given GPA get places over students with a higher GPA, but any system will have this feature, except a system which awards places solely on the basis of GPA. As a matter of interest, did the previous system for allotting places in state universities depend on GPA alone, or on other factors?
And, as a matter of interest, 10% of graduating students represents what percentage of state college places?
I’m amused to see it pointed out that the unsuccessful applicant in this case had several family members who attended UT. You could debate how relevant the acheivement of the successful applicant in coming in the top 10% of her high school graduating class is, but it is certainly much more relvant than the acheivement of the unsuccessful applicant’s relatives in securing admission to UT. Similarly, the fact that UT is the only college she would consider attending might increase one’s sympathy for her when she doesn’t get a place, but it’s hardly a relevant factor in deciding whether she should get a place or not.
The candidate who comes in the top 10% of her class and still has a GPA signficantly lower than a candidate who didn’t is obviously coming from an underperforming school, and has arguably shown an ability to deal better than most with an environment which is to some extent educationally-deprived. The rule also affords at least a minimum level of access to college for those students who, through no fault of their own, come from an educationally –challenged environment. Whether these considerations should guarantee her a place is debatable, but they seem to me much more relevant than where her relatives went to college, or whether she confines her ambitions to just one college.
GPAs and their meaning vary from school to school. In all likelihood, the 3.5 student attended a HS that probably had fewer resources and fewer AP courses (which high schools often weight higher because of their “college prep” distinction). I knew kids in my suburban high school who had 4.2+ GPAs because of these courses, but that didn’t make them smarter than an “urban” HS student with, say, a 3.7 who could’ve excelled at these courses if given a chance.
I feel bad for 3.9 student who didn’t get into the school she wanted, but let’s be honest–her GPA could’ve gotten her into any number of other schools (including other public ones). So, she didn’t get her preference. Whereas the 3.5 student probably couldn’t get into other universities that base things only on the numbers, so she’d be penalized for not having scores that are a product, in part, of the opportunities that are available at other schools but not hers.
We’re not talking about a 2.8 student. 3.5 means (theoretically) that they have enough talent and motivation to excel in a theater of higher learning. This policy has given her this opportunity. Is it “fair”? Not in each and every case, maybe, but going strictly by the numbers isn’t fair either, since it refuses to acknowledge variables that the numbers often obscure.
I found it interesting that the Ten Percenters from low-achieving schools aren’t fairing any worse than those from high-achieving schools, if we are to believe the school’s president. The young lady with the 3.5 GPA had to bust her ass that first year to catch up, but she apparently did so successfully.
I felt some sympathy for the 3.9 girl, but she needs to face the ugly truth: She wasn’t guaranteed a spot even without the 10% entitlement. There will always be someone who looks good on paper who will be rejected from their “dream” school. To be fair, her chances of being accepted would have shot up a bunch if it hadn’t been for the 10% entitlement. But the outcome could have turned out the same. When all the applicants have a ton of extracurriculars, astronomical GPAs, and regularly help old ladies cross the street, it’s the luck of the draw.
The other truth is that 3.9 Girl has choices that 3.4 Girl does not have. I’m betting the latter’s life has been impacted much more than the former by this policy.
Still, I can see how this policy is unfair. Kids from big schools are at a disadvantage over those from small schools. Kids who take advanced classes are clearly at an disadvantage over those who do not. I think this well-meaning policy confers greater unfairness than Affirmative Action, actually.
I wasn’t aware of the 10% program until I saw the show.
I like it.
If the competition and quality of the high schools are different, it’s not the fault of the students and the “solution” is to make the HS more equal. The students from the better schools got the advantage of it and that’s a good thing for them. Why should the lower school students not get a equalizing boost?
I never really liked the automatic acceptance for class placement, myself, despite the fact that I could have benefitted from it if I had initially gone to a state school. I always thought that SAT/ACT scores would be more fair, but that criteria has it’s objectors, too.
To be fair, UT is far, far from the only state school in Texas. It’s (IMO) not even the best school in Texas (although it is without a doubt the most sought after state school). Of the other state schools, I would bet no others even come close to filling 73% of entering freshmen classes with top 10% automatic enrollments. The 3.9 GPA student could have gone to many other schools, possibly even Rice U. or Trinity U.
I know nothing of this affirmative action program that this system replaced, and I’d like to hear about it, if anyone was around back then.
In regard to the time before the policy: In 1996, UT-Austin’s freshman class was made up of 46% of “Top Ten Percenters.”
Last year they did a study of who, in Texas, is going to what college, and it looks like most top students who want to go to UT or A&M get to go there. While the stories of talented students who wanted to go to a certain public school and couldn’t are poignant, we’re not talking about huge masses of high school students being denied access to their public flagships.
I like the idea in that it provides opportunities for students who, through no fault of their own, are stuck in less than stellar schools. It also gives those students at the belief that they actually have a chance. However, I don’t like that it penalizes students who take tougher courses.
I know some schools (including my old high school) give extra GPA points to AP courses as ArchiveGuy mentioned. However, even with the “bonus points” a B in Organic Chem (the most advanced chem course at my high school) was worth 3.5 while you’d get 4 points for an A in Household Chem (a class designed for those who weren’t ready for regular chem–it pretty much taught you not to mix bleach and ammonia).
I saw the segment and the student with the 3.5 said she didn’t take any AP courses. They didn’t mention whether any were offered at her school.
I felt a bit sorry for the 3.9 student when they said she was currently going to school in San Antonio (they didn’t mention where) and hoping to transfer to UT. I wanted to scream at her to move on with her life, go to a school she enjoys, and get over the fact that it’s not UT. Sure, her parents went there and all, but the kid’s life isn’t over if she doesn’t. There are any number of good schools she could go to.
What really bothered me was the comment by the 3.9 student that her classmates were constantly monitering their class rank after every test. I had enough of the competitive jerks who didn’t want to help anyone else out (lest they fall behind in class rank) back when I was in high school. We had no such thing as guaranteed acceptance back in those dark ages, and I’d hate to see what they’d have done today.
In this case. However, it should be commented, that not all cases of “high-but-not-top-10 student in a high-rated school” may necessarily be in a position where they can just absorb the higher expense of private or out-of-state schools (e.g. a family that has scrounged sacrificed in order to put their youth in a better High School). Even with scholarships and other aid, attending an out-of-state or a private college represents a significant extra expense over a state-of-residence public university. “A has choices that B does not have” is something that depends on personal circumstance.
JRDelirious, I wasn’t thinking only about the financial differences. Anyone with a 3.9 GPA and a high SAT score will have more acceptance letters (and scholarship offers) than someone with a 3.5 and a mediocre score. Someone with a 3.9 and AP credit has a better shot of going to a prestigious school than someone with a 3.5 and no advanced courses. All things being equal, 3.9 Girl is sitting prettier.
I, too, have mixed feelings about the policy, and agree 100% with the sentiments above. There was a similar type program about CA sturdents a few years back. It focused on following a few (5 or 6) students, all of whom were applying to Berkeley. There was a poor Latino, a rich White kid, an Asian kid from out of state whose parents rented him a condo during HS so he could apply, etc. What I noticed most was how many of these kids seemed to think their entire lves hinged on getting into Cal. It was just crazy.
At any rate, it seems that a state school (financed by the people of the state) should ensure that all students across the socio-economic spectrum have access to the school. This system, which at least doesn’t get into racial typing, seems to accomplish that task in a straightforward, understandable way. It might not be the best system, but I can imagine much worse systems out there. No matter how it’s done, kids and their parents will try to game the system one way or another, so it’s not like there’s going to be some perfect system that will be “fair” to everyone.
Didn’t Chairman Mao have a similar program? I went to UT while the law was intact and I think it’s incredibly stupid.
Many bright people who went to private school and magnet school got completely screwed in admission. People go to magnet schools because they are usually the best a brightest of a district and want to learn more. But in the Texas system you are penalized for going trying to better your lot in life with a better school. You should have stayed at your crappy school where you could of easily got in the top 10%. I know one magnet school student who made 1300 on his SATs was denied UT admission because he was only in the top quarter of his competitive school. Another student fro the exact same town got into the very competitive business school with less than a 1000 on the SAT simply because she choose to go to the crappy regular school. Its not how smart you are its how smart (or how dumb) your classmates are. Private school kids get screwed because many of the school did not rank their students.
At UT the top ten percent didn’t seem to work at bringing a more diverse crowd. Instead of bringing more minority students all it tended to do is favor small town whites at the expense of urban and suburban whites and Asians (who got screwed the most due to the fact many came from Bellaire and other extremely competitive Asian enclaves). Although the policy did also get Hispanics into the school it failed at attracting blacks. And what blacks we did have were all for the most part bright and able enough to get in with out the top ten percent. Many came from city magnet schools and were in fact penalized for it. It turns out the very black students who would go to a better high school to compete against white and Asian students were the same kind of people who wanted to go mostly white and Asian college. Yet Texas penalized them for it.
I don’t have mixed feelings. I think this is a good way to reward good students who rely on public schools. Result have shown that they are not wasting slots on these students, that they do catch up and benefit from the education. By being in the top 10% they have shown that they have past a test of doing well in school, why would any standardized test be better?
Those moaning about it had the choice to go to a public school and chose not to. Is there any case where they were prevented from attending a public school? Many are upset that they will have to go to a private college that will cost more. So be it. They spent resources on private school, they could have chosen to go to a public school and if they felt it inadequate, well they are free to study outside of school as well. No one forced them into private school. Maybe they should try to improve public high schools so they match the quality of the public colleges?
It seems to me also that this is good for the state, because those who go to public high scools and public colleges, might be more likely to stay in the state. They will retain bright educated citizens, who care about education.
I don’t think there is anything wrong with the program. I didn’t have a 3.9 GPA and my SATS weren’t out of this world, and I got accepted into nearly school I applied to. No student should rely on the 10% rule, it should be a back-up plan. She has other options if she wanted to explore them. They all do. There are over 4,000 full time universities in this country, and countless scholarships, and about 1 million JCs in California alone. It’s her bad luck that she didn’t fully investigate her options and make a back-up plan. Every responsible student I knew who had GPAs over 4.0 had a back-up plan and an alternative route. I have zero sympathy for any student who applies to only one school and doesn’t get accepted, regardless of the reasons.
Yeah, that got a big WTF??? from me. So let me understand this - you’re griping about an unfair system because it doesn’t automatically let you in just because of your family? I’m kind of surprised 60 Minutes let that one go.
I had that thought as well, and I can see that most dopers so far did too. I was having a really hard time mustering sympathy for people of privilege who were upset because they didn’t get their first choice. I just thought, “So suck it up and go to another college.”
With your latter comment, I agree. One of the plaintiffs in the Michigan case stated that she’d only appled to Michigan, and was ‘devastated’ when she didn’t get again because she didn’t apply anywhere else. She had to find a place that would accept a late application. She said it was a major life setback. I thought, “You applied to only ONE school, and it was the most competitive public school in the state? You oughtta be suing your guidance counselor while you’re at it.”
As for your former statement, little nitpick here, it’s more like 3500 postsecondary institutions (not sure what the “full time” modifier would mean with an institution) and that includes 2-year colleges and community colleges. I think the number of 4-year colleges and universities stands at around 1500.
It’s a feature, not a bug. For those who are committed to the idea of public education, the fact that some schools are better than others is a major problem, and anything that makes the playing feild more level is a good thing. Keeping you in your crappy school is just what they have in mind. Of course, I think we should get rid of public schools, but I’m nuts.
FWIW, Florida has a similar system (almost like our governors talked about these things over Christmas dinner or something); generally the top 20% of HS seniors are in, with some caveats.
It was widely criticised at the beginning, but that has lessened as the results have come in. IMO, many of the critics have missed the point by saying that it’s failed to increase minority enrollment; that wasn’t the goal. The goal was to remove race as a criteria for admission while maintaining minority enrollment.
California has a similar system in which the top 12% (I think) of high school students are eligible to enter the University of California, assuming other standards are met.
However, that doesn’t mean a student is entitled to enter the two most popular, and most prestigious, campuses – Berkeley and UCLA. Some are forced to go to less popular campuses.
Is it University of California or California State? I remember when I was applying to schools I knew I could fall back on the State schools without problem, but I wasn’t quite so complacent about the UC schools…
You’re right, my bad. It’s a stat my seminar teacher throws at us on a weekly basis and I couldn’t remember if the number included JCs and 4 year universities…well anywho, I’ll check my notes before throwing numbers out from now on…